Time for 2.6.30 in F-11?

[Bojan Smojver]

Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
having this kernel?

[Ilyes Gouta]

Hi,

Users with Intel's integrated chips need the updated DRM in that
kernel. I think that an update is highly recommended.

-Ilyes

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
> having this kernel?
>
> --
> Bojan
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Neal Gompa]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Ilyes Gouta  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Users with Intel's integrated chips need the updated DRM in that
> kernel. I think that an update is highly recommended.
>
> -Ilyes
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
> > having this kernel?
> >
> > --
> > Bojan
> >
> > --
> > fedora-devel-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

I concur.... I have five laptops and a few desktops with Intel graphics, and
it would definitely be great if the update would be pushed through!

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 11:51:15 +0100,
  Ilyes Gouta  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Users with Intel's integrated chips need the updated DRM in that
> kernel. I think that an update is highly recommended.

Where do you think the development of those features has been going on?
Most of that stuff went into the Fedora version of the kernel during the
F11 rawhide cycle. Some of the KMS stuff even goes back to the F10
rawhide cycle. Everyone else is just getting what has already been available
in Fedora.

[Ilyes Gouta]

Hi,

The fact is that F11 shipped with broken Xv support for old Intel
chips such as the i855 among other deficiencies. The problem can
mainly be attributed to the outdated xorg-drv-x11-intel-2.7.0 that
came with F11. A newer version (2.8.0) for that driver exists but also
depends on an updated user-space libdrm and kernel DRM for Intel h/w
hence the request. xorg-drv-x11-intel should be really updated ASAP.

Regards,
Ilyes Gouta.

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 11:51:15 +0100,
>  Ilyes Gouta  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Users with Intel's integrated chips need the updated DRM in that
> > kernel. I think that an update is highly recommended.
>
> Where do you think the development of those features has been going on?
> Most of that stuff went into the Fedora version of the kernel during the
> F11 rawhide cycle. Some of the KMS stuff even goes back to the F10
> rawhide cycle. Everyone else is just getting what has already been available
> in Fedora.

[Clemens Eisserer]

Hi,
> The fact is that F11 shipped with broken Xv support for old Intel
> chips such as the i855 among other deficiencies. The problem can
> mainly be attributed to the outdated xorg-drv-x11-intel-2.7.0 that
> came with F11.

The version in F11 isn't really 2.7, its heavily patched as is the kernel part.
In fact the RedHat guys fixed tons of bugs themself, because intel
seemed unable to e.g. provide mouse-pointer support for i865 when UXA
is used, or to find the cause of sporadic pixmap corruptions. All this
was done by RedHat.
> A newer version (2.8.0) for that driver exists but also
> depends on an updated user-space libdrm and kernel DRM for Intel h/w
> hence the request. xorg-drv-x11-intel should be really updated ASAP.

As far as I know 2.8.0 hasn't been officially released.
I could imaginge they hestitate to replace the patched 2.6.29, until
2.8.0 is released and declared as stable.

- Clemens

[Ralf Ertzinger]

Hi.

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:15:49 +0100, Ilyes Gouta wrote
> The fact is that F11 shipped with broken Xv support for old Intel
> chips such as the i855 among other deficiencies. The problem can
> mainly be attributed to the outdated xorg-drv-x11-intel-2.7.0 that
> came with F11. A newer version (2.8.0) for that driver exists but also
> depends on an updated user-space libdrm and kernel DRM for Intel h/w
> hence the request. xorg-drv-x11-intel should be really updated ASAP.

Given the fact that F11-xorg actually works on my GM45, while rawhide
with the mentioned .30 kernel and 2.8 intel driver died various horrible
deaths without ever producing a picture makes me question the general
usefulness of that update.

[Ralf Ertzinger]

Hi.

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 15:59:46 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote
> Given the fact that F11-xorg actually works on my GM45, while rawhide
> with the mentioned .30 kernel and 2.8 intel driver died various
> horrible deaths without ever producing a picture makes me question
> the general usefulness of that update.

In all fairness I'll have to add that the current rawhide packages
as of some minutes ago (kernel, xorg* and *drm*) seem to work,
at least I have a working desktop.

[Kevin Kofler]

Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
> having this kernel?

And why is F10 still stuck on 2.6.27? 2.6.29 has been in updates-testing for
ages now.

Kevin Kofler

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

CCing #fedora-kernel-list

On 04.07.2009 16:12, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
> > having this kernel?
>
> And why is F10 still stuck on 2.6.27? 2.6.29 has been in updates-testing for
> ages now.

Good question. Seems the "ship state-of-the-art/nearly latest kernel
versions from kernel.org as regular update for Fedora" worked much
better in the past. Is that for a specific reason or just a side effect
of something (maintainer/responsibly changes maybe?).

And yes, I know it's a lot of work to prepare updates from 2.6.x.y to
2.6.(x+1).y. So thx for that work -- it IMHO is definitely worth it as
it makes people get drivers for new hardware without forcing them to
switch to rawhide.

That, btw and afaics, for quite some people was one of the reasons to
chose Fedora. I for example use Fedora for testing at work mainly
because I got latest kernels on Fedora automatically.

Cu
knurd

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
> having this kernel?

Worth mentioning— .30 makes a non-backwards-compatible BTRFS format change.

So if you go .30 on a BTRFS system you can't go back.

(though, I suppose that can be seen an argument for getting Fedora to
.30 sooner)

[drago01]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
> > having this kernel?
>
> Worth mentioning— .30 makes a non-backwards-compatible BTRFS format change.
>
> So if you go .30 on a BTRFS system you can't go back.
>
> (though, I suppose that can be seen an argument for getting Fedora to
> .30 sooner)

brtfs support was always "if you care about data than don't use it or
make backups"